Reading Comprehension

PT102 · S1 · P4 · Q22 Organicist vs. Analytic

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Scientists typically advocate the analytic method of studying complex systems: systems are divided into component parts that are investigated separately.

Topic

The debate between the analytic method and organicism in studying complex systems.

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

The author challenges the organicists' rejection of the analytic method, arguing that organicists misunderstood how the analytic method actually works and failed to provide valid reasons for abandoning it. ( — final sentence)

P1: Introduction to Analytic Method and Organicist Critique

Scientists usually break down complex systems to study their parts individually (analytic method), but 19th-century critics (organicists) argued this loses essential complexity. They introduced organicism, which sees parts as interdependent and defined by the whole.

P2: Theory of Internal Relations

Organicism relies on the theory of internal relations: entities are fundamentally defined by their relationships within a whole, and these relationships alter the very nature of the entities involved.

P3: Issues with Internal Relations

Problem: Not every property an entity has counts as a defining characteristic; entities can have relationships that don't actually change their core identity.

22.

Which one of the following most completely and accurately summarizes the argument of the passage?

  1. By calling into question the

    Wrong Emphasis: Author's View Missing

    The main clause here is a neutral idea that, "Organicists offered an alternative to the analytic method". We're not capturing the author's Challenge Position purpose if the main clause doesn't sound more like "Organicists offered a crappy alternative to the analytic method".

    2% picked this

  2. Organicists did not offer a

    Wrong Main Objection

    The first half of this answer is fine, but if we're going to only cite one of the author's objections to organicism it should be something that sounds more like the 4th paragraph. It's a bigger complaint that "your theory renders the acquisition of knowledge impossible" than it is to say, "Hey, not all relationships change an entity's identity!"

    3% picked this

  3. Organicism is flawed because it

    Too Narrow

    This answer could easily be a correct answer, if there weren't a broader one that wraps its arms around more of the passage. This captures the author's attitude in writing about organicism and both objections seem pretty valid (they refer to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, respectively). But this answer, unlike the correct answer, doesn't touch on any of the author's comments from the 5th paragraph, in which she explains how organicism had an incorrect sense of what the analytic method was all about.

    17% picked this

  4. Correct

    Organicism does not offer a

    Why this is right

    This answer beats (C) by being more expansive in its language, and thus able to capture the author's discussion in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs. The 3rd and 4th cover how the theory of internal relations is faulty (not every relationship changes an entity in any defining way / this theory would render the acquisition of knowledge impossible). And the 5th paragraph covers how organicists misrepresented the analytic method: their criticism arose from their failure to comprehend the analytic method. The final sentence of the passage also sounds like the author's big conclusion: Hence, organicists offered no valid reason for rejecting analytic or for adopting organicism as a replacement. This lines up well with the language in this answer that "Organicism does not offer a valid challenge to the analytic method".

    Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    68% picked this

  5. In criticizing the analytic method,

    Out of Scope: neglected to disprove

    Overall, this answer feels too narrow in targeting language from the middle of the final paragraph. There, we were saying that "in criticizing the analytic method, organicists failed to recognize that analytic scientists were first determining the laws and initial conditions of the system". Nothing was ever talking about them "neglecting to disprove X". There's a big difference between, "You failed to recognize that X is true" and "you failed to disprove X (failed to prove that X is false)."

    9% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free